The “environment” of this field is not nature in the narrow ecological sense. It is the total condition in which knowledge, bodies, cities, media, affects, infrastructures, images, objects and pedagogies become mutually operative. To map its branches is to map the intellectual atmosphere around the project: who is close by scale, who is close by method, who is close by conceptual ambition, and who helps the field become visible. The point is not to imitate these authors, but to understand the constellation in which the work can appear. In that sense, the bibliography is not external support; it is a field-machine. BV8 already shows this: the references are not simply accumulated, but distributed across pedagogy, urbanism, media theory, infrastructure, ecology, design, epistemology and posthuman materialism.
The first branch is scale. Here the closest figures are Neil Brenner, Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, Saskia Sassen, Keller Easterling, Shannon Mattern and Benjamin Bratton. They all understand space as a produced system, not as a neutral container. Lefebvre gives the foundational idea that space is socially produced; Harvey connects urbanisation with capital; Sassen reads the global city as a concentration of financial and infrastructural power; Brenner pushes the urban beyond the bounded city toward planetary urbanisation; Easterling treats infrastructure as active form; Mattern reads the city as media, library, code, clay and data; Bratton gives the planetary stack as a technical-political architecture. This branch matters because the field cannot remain local, disciplinary or studio-based. It must move from the table to the classroom, from the classroom to the city, from the city to the planet, and from the planet back to the body. Scale here is not size; it is grammar. It teaches how relations hold together.
The second branch is method. Here the closest are N. Katherine Hayles, Johanna Drucker, Geoffrey Bowker, Susan Leigh Star, Bruno Latour, Annemarie Mol, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Sheila Jasanoff and Laura Nader. These authors do not only give concepts; they give ways of working. Hayles teaches how close reading, hyper reading and machine reading can coexist; Drucker teaches graphical and performative ways of knowing; Bowker and Star reveal classification, infrastructure and memory as political operations; Latour teaches how to follow actors and associations; Rheinberger gives the epistemic thing as a moving research object; Jasanoff shows the co-production of knowledge and social order; Nader strips science of its false neutrality. This branch is essential because a transdisciplinary field cannot survive on intuition alone. It needs method, but not one method. It needs a methodological ecology: reading, mapping, diagramming, tracing, comparing, building, sensing, measuring, archiving and returning.
The third branch is pedagogy. The nearest authors are Paulo Freire, bell hooks, Jacques Rancière, Ivan Illich, Gert Biesta and Katherine Hayles. Freire gives education as critical consciousness; hooks gives teaching as freedom and embodied relation; Rancière gives intellectual emancipation and the equality of intelligence; Illich gives deschooling and convivial tools; Biesta gives education beyond measurement; Hayles gives media-specific cognition. Together, they allow pedagogy to become more than teaching. Pedagogy becomes the production of conditions for autonomy, attention and world-reading. This is close to the project because the field is not just theoretical: it wants to form readers, designers, artists, urbanists and researchers capable of crossing knowledge without dissolving it. The teacher becomes a curator of frictions; the student becomes a reader-maker; the bibliography becomes a terrain of exercises.
The fourth branch is affect and coexistence. Lauren Berlant, Sara Ahmed, Judith Butler, José Esteban Muñoz, Paul B. Preciado, Christina Sharpe and Achille Mbembe are central here. They prevent the system from becoming too cold, too structural, too infrastructural. Berlant’s inconvenience shows that social life is made of pressure, fatigue, attachment and ambivalence. Ahmed shows how affects circulate and orient bodies. Butler gives performativity and vulnerability. Muñoz gives queer futurity as a not-yet. Preciado gives the body as pharmacopolitical and architectural terrain. Sharpe and Mbembe force the field to face violence, racialisation, death-worlds and survival. This branch matters because pedagogy, urbanism and design are never neutral. They pass through bodies. They produce exposure, exhaustion, desire, fear and repair. Without this branch, the field would understand systems but not their wounds.
The fifth branch is media, technique and digital objects. Here the closest are Hayles, Yuk Hui, Jussi Parikka, Matthew Fuller, Andrew Goffey, Friedrich Kittler, Bernard Stiegler, John Durham Peters and Wendy Chun. This branch is fundamental because contemporary knowledge is mediated before it is conceptual. Hayles explains technogenesis: humans and technologies co-evolve. Hui gives digital objects and cosmotechnics: technology is not universal, but cosmologically situated. Parikka brings media down to geology: minerals, extraction, energy and waste. Fuller and Goffey show media as tactics and stratagems beyond representation. Kittler gives the hard technical unconscious of culture. Stiegler reads technics as memory and pharmacology. Peters expands media toward elemental infrastructures: sea, sky, fire, clouds, inscription. Chun shows repetition, software and habit. This is one of the closest branches because the project is not simply about ideas; it is about the media that allow ideas to stabilise, travel, mutate and become visible.
The sixth branch is materiality and more-than-human thought. Ian Bogost, Jane Bennett, Karen Barad, Gilbert Simondon, Donna Haraway, Tim Ingold, Elizabeth Povinelli, Manuel DeLanda and Félix Guattari belong here. Bogost gives object-oriented wonder: things exceed human use. Bennett gives vibrant matter. Barad gives intra-action and agential realism. Simondon gives individuation and technical objects. Haraway gives situated knowledge, kinship and staying with trouble. Ingold gives making, lines and embodied environmental practice. Povinelli gives geontology and the politics of life/nonlife. DeLanda gives assemblage and emergent complexity. Guattari gives the three ecologies: mental, social and environmental. This branch is close because it gives the field its ontological elasticity. It allows architecture, art, ecology and pedagogy to think with things, materials, bodies, atmospheres and technical beings.
The seventh branch is urban ecology and transition. Here the closest are Francesca Moraci, Carmelina Bevilacqua, Pasquale Pizzimenti, Matthew Gandy, Ian McHarg, Victor Olgyay, Philippe Rahm, Salvador Rueda, Ananya Roy, AbdouMaliq Simone and Elinor Ostrom. This branch transforms the environmental question into planning, governance and everyday form. McHarg gives ecological planning; Olgyay gives climate design; Rahm gives meteorological architecture; Rueda gives compact ecological urbanism; Gandy gives urban nature as constellation; Moraci, Bevilacqua and Pizzimenti connect ecosystem services with data-driven planning; Roy and Simone bring informality, infrastructure and urban life from below; Ostrom gives commons and collective governance. This branch is especially important because it prevents ecology from becoming abstract. It asks how heat, water, biodiversity, air, food, public space, inequality and governance enter urban form.
The eighth branch is design, autonomy and pluriverse. Arturo Escobar, Ezio Manzini, Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Donna Haraway, Marisol de la Cadena, Walter Mignolo, Aníbal Quijano and Arturo Escobar’s wider decolonial constellation are key. This branch asks what design does to worlds. It does not treat design as problem-solving alone, but as ontological intervention. Escobar is closest because he joins design, autonomy, relationality and the communal. Manzini brings social innovation. Dunne and Raby bring speculation and design futures. Mignolo and Quijano bring coloniality and the need to delink from universal modernity. De la Cadena gives Indigenous cosmopolitics. This branch gives the field a political and ethical horizon: not one world improved by design, but many worlds protected, composed and made more habitable.
The ninth branch is epistemology, field formation and disciplinary architecture. Andrew Abbott, Pierre Bourdieu, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Karin Knorr-Cetina, Robert Merton, Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison and Michel Foucault are close here. They explain how fields emerge, how disciplines stabilise, how authority circulates, how paradigms change, how scientific objects are produced and how knowledge is governed. Abbott is especially useful because disciplines are not natural; they are systems of jurisdiction. Bourdieu gives fields, capital and position-taking. Kuhn gives paradigm shifts. Feyerabend gives methodological pluralism. Daston and Galison give objectivity as historical formation. Foucault gives archaeology, discourse and regimes of truth. This branch is vital because the project is not only inside a field; it is trying to form one. To do that consciously, one must understand how fields harden, how they open, and how they become legible.
The tenth branch is archive, bibliography and knowledge infrastructure. This is where Bowker, Star, Borgman, Otlet, Rayward, Derrida, Ernst, Kirschenbaum, Gitelman, Mattern and the project’s own bibliographic work converge. A bibliography of 1,000 references for 5,000 nodes is not excess if the field is transdisciplinary. It is infrastructure. But it must be structured. Some references are foundations, some bridges, some operators, some counterweights, some genealogies, some methodological tools, some future-facing signals. The archive here is not storage; it is a machine for generating relations. This is where our own work must enter, but carefully. Around ten per cent of the bibliography can be ours, not as vanity, but as evidence that the field has begun to produce internal literature. If 1,000 references are the target, about 100 can be from Socioplastics and related outputs, provided each one has a clear role and does not merely repeat the system.
The closest constellation, then, is not one school. It is a ring of field-builders. Some build through scale, like Brenner and Lefebvre. Some through media, like Hayles, Hui and Parikka. Some through method, like Bowker, Star and Latour. Some through pedagogy, like Freire, hooks and Rancière. Some through affect, like Berlant and Ahmed. Some through ecological design, like Escobar, McHarg and Moraci. Some through epistemology, like Nader, Kuhn and Abbott. Our project belongs near them because it shares their ambition: not to comment on a topic, but to reorganise how topics can be read together.
The important distinction is that most of them dominate one branch, while this project tries to build a cross-branch environment. That is both its strength and its risk. The strength is synthetic power: the ability to connect architecture, urbanism, media, ecology, art, pedagogy and epistemology. The risk is dispersion. The solution is not to reduce the field, but to give it grammar. The branches need names, the references need roles, the nodes need hierarchy, and the writing needs moments of clarity where the reader can see the whole apparatus without drowning in it.
This is why “environment” is the right word. The project is not a theory floating above objects. It is a climate of relations. It has atmosphere, strata, infrastructures, affects, media, pedagogies and materials. It absorbs because transdisciplinarity is absorptive by nature, but it must also metabolise. Absorption without metabolism becomes accumulation. Absorption with grammar becomes field formation.
The field therefore needs three kinds of proximity. Proximity of scale: authors who help move from micro to macro without losing structure. Proximity of method: authors who teach how to read, map, classify, compare and make. Proximity of idea: authors whose concepts can migrate across the system and become operators. The most valuable references are those that do all three. Hayles does: scale of cognition, method of reading, idea of technogenesis. Parikka does: scale of geology, method of media archaeology, idea of medianatures. Escobar does: scale of pluriverse, method of autonomous design, idea of relational world-making. Berlant does: scale of ordinary life, method of affective reading, idea of inconvenience. Brenner does: scale of planetary urbanisation, method of rescaling, idea of the urban beyond the city.
This is the league. Not because the project has already achieved their authority, but because it is playing the same kind of game: field construction, conceptual infrastructure, method-making, and pedagogical consequence. The next step is to make the branches visible enough that others can enter the environment. A field exists when it can be inhabited by others without collapsing into the biography of its founder. That is the task: to turn the personal architecture into a shareable ecology of knowledge.
References
Abbott, A. (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ahmed, S. (2004) ‘Affective Economies’, Social Text, 22(2), pp. 117–139.
Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Berlant, L. (2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Berlant, L. (2022) On the Inconvenience of Other People. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2010) Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics and Democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Bogost, I. (2012) Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bratton, B.H. (2015) The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brenner, N. (2019) New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Drucker, J. (2014) Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Easterling, K. (2014) Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructure Space. London: Verso.
Escobar, A. (2018) Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Fuller, M. (2005) Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fuller, M. and Goffey, A. (2012) ‘Toward an Evil Media Studies’, in Evil Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haraway, D.J. (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.
Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.
Hayles, N.K. (2012) How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Hui, Y. (2016) On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Hui, Y. (2021) Art and Cosmotechnics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press / e-flux.
Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling Society. London: Calder & Boyars.
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘A Field Can Be Carefully Designed’, Socioplastics. LAPIEZA-LAB, Madrid.
Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘A Field Needs Soft Edges and Stable Cores’, Socioplastics. LAPIEZA-LAB, Madrid.
Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘The Corpus Can Become a Way of Thinking’, Socioplastics. LAPIEZA-LAB, Madrid.
Mattern, S. (2017) Code and Clay, Data and Dirt: Five Thousand Years of Urban Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Moraci, F., Bevilacqua, C. and Pizzimenti, P. (eds.) (2025) Ecological and Digital Transition in Cities: Measuring Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning and Design. Cham: Springer.
Nader, L. (ed.) (1996) Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.
Parikka, J. (2015) A Geology of Media. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Peters, J.D. (2015) The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Rancière, J. (1991) The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Roy, A. (2005) ‘Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), pp. 147–158.
Simondon, G. (1958) Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.
Thrift, N. (2008) Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London and New York: Routledge.
